ENIC...

[danielneeds]

I know it's a little different in Germany as I believe that with a few exceptions that clubs are 51% owned by their fans but do the fans of Borussia Dortmund constantly criticise the transfer policy of Dortmund for not spending enough money in the transfer market .

In the last 10 years according to transfermarket.com , Dortmund have not spent more than £27.45 million on any player, the most was for Hummels when he came back from Munich, yet they have uncovered some absolute gems at bargain prices.

Wonder what the reaction would be here if Levy had purchased Ousmane Dembélé for £13.5 mil. and then the next season as Dortmund did sold him for £112.5 mil. , would Levy be praised or slaughtered for no ambition.

Most Dortmund fans understand that if they have a top player he’s probably gonna leave for Bayern, or one of the big Euro super powers eventually. They know that Haaland is only gonna be there a few years.

But they also know that the club has a a plan, which is bringing in the best young players in Europe, and if the stars align they’ll keep enough of them together to win something.

I’d have no problem with us acting similarly, it’s better than not being a selling or buying club that we turned into in before last summer.

 

[Locotoro]

In the entire time I've supported Spurs from the days of Leonardsen, Iverson and Sinton and Howells before them, with our beautiful but tiny stadium, hoping we get entry to Europe by the fair play table or intertoto cup. We've had some exceptional talented players who've shone through the muck and entertained and delighted us like Ginola, Bale and VDV. We've had managers with philosophies, tube tickets and dogs with bank accounts where players were told to run around a bit.

From where we were to where we are, there's not a single club in the world in any sport that has advanced in terms of capital infrastructure, internal organisation, global commercial value and on the field ability than we have.

If anyone would have said in the 90s that this is where we'd be there wouldn't be a single fan who'd be negative. The two consistent factors at Spurs for almost 2 decades have been continual gradual progress and Daniel Levy.

People are looking at this as if it's a short term win (hello Leeds and Portsmouth). It's not - we're playing the long game here. I cannot believe that fans can actually be so fickle as to want to get rid of the man who has made the biggest impact on a club in any sport especially when we're now able to realise the fruits of his labour.

In the immortal words of Denzel "This is a game of chess not chequers!"

 

[yido_number1]

We don’t have City’s petrol money. We don’t have Chelsea’s Russian money. To use either as an example is ridiculous. We operate on a different financial level. We still make funds available. We still break our own transfer records. Sadly, we buy poorly.

Their money came from their owners. Our owners chose as a personal decision not to invest into the club.

People say Enic aren't milking the club for the profits and they are correct. However, if I'm not mistaken Enic purchased the club for under £100m. Since then I don't believe they have stumped up their own cash with our revenue paying for the training ground, land purchases and loans paying for the stadium which I believe are secured against the club.

All of these things have seen the club value rise to over a £billion depending on the speculation so Enic stand to make at least £900m from their £100m investment without bankrolling us as a club. Others will have a far better analysis than me but people seem to think Enic aren't making a load of money from this or aren't getting rich when that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I’d have no problem with us acting similarly, it’s better than not being a selling or buying club that we turned into in before last summer.

True but Dortmund have not won the title for many seasons now and in 17/18 transfer window they sold Dembele & Aubameyang for a total of £169 mill. players that could win them the title, that's like Spurs selling Sonny and Harry . At the same time Dortmund signed Yarmolenko , Phillip and Sancho all forwards, Yarmolenko & Phillip have since been sold on , if Levy sold out for the money like Dortmund have he would have been totally slaughtered and accused of only being in it for the money no ambition blah blah blah, just wonder if Dortmund fans carry on like some of our lot do..

 

[Locotoro]

Their money came from their owners. Our owners chose as a personal decision not to invest into the club.

People say Enic aren't milking the club for the profits and they are correct. However, if I'm not mistaken Enic purchased the club for under £100m. Since then I don't believe they have stumped up their own cash with our revenue paying for the training ground, land purchases and loans paying for the stadium which I believe are secured against the club.

All of these things have seen the club value rise to over a £billion depending on the speculation so Enic stand to make at least £900m from their £100m investment without bankrolling us as a club. Others will have a far better analysis than me but people seem to think Enic aren't making a load of money from this or aren't getting rich when that is exactly what they are doing.

You're absolutely right. ENIC are making money.

But at least we're not in debt to them to an extortionate sum like Chelsea and City are to their owners. Imagine when ENIC do sell we're not beholden to pay back any loans and stunt our progress thereafter.

The other thing to note - not directed at you - is that City and Chelsea did not get sustained success until they brought in good managers. They spent a lot of money with not a lot of return but when Pellegrino and Mourinho came that's when the success came.
Money alone doesn't buy success. You still need everything else in place.

 

[yido_number1]

In the entire time I've supported Spurs from the days of Leonardsen, Iverson and Sinton and Howells before them, with our beautiful but tiny stadium, hoping we get entry to Europe by the fair play table or intertoto cup. We've had some exceptional talented players who've shone through the muck and entertained and delighted us like Ginola, Bale and VDV. We've had managers with philosophies, tube tickets and dogs with bank accounts where players were told to run around a bit.

From where we were to where we are, there's not a single club in the world in any sport that has advanced in terms of capital infrastructure, internal organisation, global commercial value and on the field ability than we have.

If anyone would have said in the 90s that this is where we'd be there wouldn't be a single fan who'd be negative. The two consistent factors at Spurs for almost 2 decades years have been continual gradual progress and Daniel Levy.

People are looking at this as if it's a short term win (hello Leeds and Portsmouth). It's not - we're playing the long game here. I cannot believe that fans can actually be so fickle as to want to get rid of the man who has made the biggest impact on a club in any sport especially when we're now able to realise the fruits of his labour.

In the immortal words of Denzel "This is a game of chess not chequers!"

RB Leipzig, Manchester City, Athletico Madrid and probably Chelsea have all done the same or better. They've improved their facilities and stadiums other than Chelsea and have all massively increased their commercial revenues. All bar Leipzig have won their leagues.

The players you quoted probably make you the same age as me or there abouts 38. It's worth noting that just before the premier league we were in the power group of teams in the country and had won cups consistently through the 50's, 60's 70's and 80's. We weren't always as shit as were from 93-2001. That is an 8 year period of recovery from Irving Scholar. We were so good initially we were given a a bigger share of the revenue than any club outside the top 6.

We've gone from winning trophies and having great players to being a property development/investment company.

 

[dudu]

RB Leipzig, Manchester City, Athletico Madrid and probably Chelsea have all done the same or better. They've improved their facilities and stadiums other than Chelsea and have all massively increased their commercial revenues. All bar Leipzig have won their leagues.

The players you quoted probably make you the same age as me or there abouts 38. It's worth noting that just before the premier league we were in the power group of teams in the country and had won cups consistently through the 50's, 60's 70's and 80's. We weren't always as shit as were from 93-2001. That is an 8 year period of recovery from Irving Scholar. We were so good initially we were given a a bigger share of the revenue than any club outside the top 6.

We've gone from winning trophies and having great players to being a property development/investment company.

Be honest. Did we or did we not have a good enough team under Redknapp/Poch to win a cup?

 

[yido_number1]

You're absolutely right. ENIC are making money.

But at least we're not in debt to them to an extortionate sum like Chelsea and City are to their owners. Imagine when ENIC do sell we're not beholden to pay back any loans and stunt our progress thereafter.

The other thing to note - not directed at you - is that City and Chelsea did not get sustained success until they brought in good managers. They spent a lot of money with not a lot of return but when Pellegrino and Mourinho came that's when the success came.
Money alone doesn't buy success. You still need everything else in place.

We're not in debt to Enic we are in debt to the banks, to the tune of something like £600m or more.

Ranieri took chelsea to second in the league and a champions league semi in Abramovich's first year. Mourinho won the league in his first year which was Abramovich's second. Mancini won the league and an Fa Cup before Pellegrino came. The 5th place finish before that was City's highest in the premier league for context.

 

[yido_number1]

Be honest. Did we or did we not have a good enough team under Redknapp/Poch to win a cup?

Evidently not, because we didn't.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

In the entire time I've supported Spurs from the days of Leonardsen, Iverson and Sinton and Howells before them, with our beautiful but tiny stadium, hoping we get entry to Europe by the fair play table or intertoto cup. We've had some exceptional talented players who've shone through the muck and entertained and delighted us like Ginola, Bale and VDV. We've had managers with philosophies, tube tickets and dogs with bank accounts where players were told to run around a bit.

From where we were to where we are, there's not a single club in the world in any sport that has advanced in terms of capital infrastructure, internal organisation, global commercial value and on the field ability than we have.

If anyone would have said in the 90s that this is where we'd be there wouldn't be a single fan who'd be negative. The two consistent factors at Spurs for almost 2 decades have been continual gradual progress and Daniel Levy.

People are looking at this as if it's a short term win (hello Leeds and Portsmouth). It's not - we're playing the long game here. I cannot believe that fans can actually be so fickle as to want to get rid of the man who has made the biggest impact on a club in any sport especially when we're now able to realise the fruits of his labour.

In the immortal words of Denzel "This is a game of chess not chequers!"

Off the pitch they've done incredibly, on the pitch could be much improved. We've hired quite a few poor managers who weren't the right fit and then we've either not backed them adequately or in a timely fashion, rinse and repeat. No clear vision or plan on the pitch. Levy got quite lucky with Poch, otherwise most of his managerial appointments have been utter guff.

 

[dudu]

Evidently not, because we didn't.

That's a pretty facetious answer and I think you know it is.

 

[shelfboy68]

Not buying a single player for 3 consecutive windows was negligent

Not buying a replacement for Llorente was negligent

Not buying a striker when Kane got injured was negligent

Taking their eye off the ball in regards to contracts whilst we were concentrating on building our shiny new stadium was negligent

Once again failed to back their manager

Absolute fucking clusterfuck.

At the time the club must have thought they were ok ticking along in the top four with Harry scoring etc so no need to invest, it was flagged up at the time by a number of us suggesting that this was an oversight and would bite us in the arse which it has.

 

[riggi]

He interestingly also skips past the fact that the players all downed tools in the end. Like a couple of signings would've made that problem just go away.
I like Paul Hawksbee, he's a great broadcaster and a funny guy, but he does talk some nonsense at times.

New players wouldn't down tools ?.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

At the time the club must have thought they were ok ticking along in the top four with Harry scoring etc so no need to invest, it was flagged up at the time by a number of us suggesting that this was an oversight and would bite us in the arse which it has.

We did bring in back up for Harry , his name was Vincent Janssen, 27 goals in 34 games for AZ perhaps the coaching team didn't utilise him as they should, we could do with him now up front to hold the ball up.

 

[vegassd]

Their money came from their owners. Our owners chose as a personal decision not to invest into the club.

People say Enic aren't milking the club for the profits and they are correct. However, if I'm not mistaken Enic purchased the club for under £100m. Since then I don't believe they have stumped up their own cash with our revenue paying for the training ground, land purchases and loans paying for the stadium which I believe are secured against the club.

All of these things have seen the club value rise to over a £billion depending on the speculation so Enic stand to make at least £900m from their £100m investment without bankrolling us as a club. Others will have a far better analysis than me but people seem to think Enic aren't making a load of money from this or aren't getting rich when that is exactly what they are doing.

You are more or less right about their approach to club investment. I actually think that Lewis made a subsequent share purchase of £100m which was then written off (essentially a gift to the club) and that was at a time when £100m was worth some in football. But either way, the organisation is currently worth a lot more than it was.

But in essence the idea of ENIC (and other investment companies) is that you purchase a company and then bring your knowledge and strategy to the table to allow the company to thrive under it's own steam. There's no point in buying a company for £100m, investing another £400m of your own money and then selling for £500m. You haven't achieved anything.

So it's a double-edged sword really. People may grumble that ENIC stand to make a lot of money when they sell up, but they are only going to make that money because the club is in such a good position. The club is in such a good position because of the strategy that ENIC have used.

Look I get it... it's the money from the fans that have fuelled what ENIC have done and lots of people don't like that idea because somebody else is going to get rich of their dime. As fans we have generally been paying as much as the other PL regulars averaged over 20 years.

Imagine if we had been paying all this money but ended up with no trophies and the same team as Everton - that would be shit. Or if we watched our club regress from Ferguson/Wenger glory days to scrabbling to make European football. We should remember that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

I doubt any of us support Spurs because we studied a business plan back in the day. We do so because of family ties or whatever else, like most other football fans. Also like other fans it costs a crap load of money to watch the team every week, and that price keeps going up which sucks. The differentiating factor is how our money gets spent by our club, and if we can rule out the sugar daddy option (because it's pathetic) I think we have followed a pretty decent strategy of building revenues in order to compete long-term.

 

[vegassd]

Absolute horseshit.

Which part? Should be an easy thing to provide a bit of evidence or reasoning to tear apart what I said right?

 

[Nebby]

New players wouldn't down tools ?.

Like Pogba?

 

[Nebby]

That's a pretty facetious answer and I think you know it is.

But it's 100% accurate. We are one team surrounded by domestic and european competitors that are superior. Poch had a good team, at the peak of its powers, that played great football. Sadly, it still wasn't good enough.

 

[dudu]

But it's 100% accurate. We are one team surrounded by domestic and european competitors that are superior. Poch had a good team, at the peak of its powers, that played great football. Sadly, it still wasn't good enough.

Right, but whose fault was that? I agree we weren't good enough on said days to win said trophies but I believe the team was good enough to and I don't put the full blame on ENICs shoulder for us not being able to do so.

 

[riggi]

Like Pogba?

Let’s not sign Pogba then.